Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SharpeXB

  1. From the perspective of selling the game and bringing in customers, training features aren’t the big draw. Modules are. Selling modules is what makes money for ED, not features. What’s going to attract a new player to DCS is seeing a module for an aircraft that interests them like an F-14 or a P-47. Or maybe just a sale. And it doesn’t matter what players do with the game, it only matter that they buy it. ED doesn’t get paid for what players do in the game. They can have fun just making stuff go boom or engage in something more sophisticated, whatever. But it doesn’t matter for the game’s profitability or popularity. And the vast vast majority of players in this or any game will play it for a dozen or so hours and then move on. They’ll have their fun flying a P-51 around and shooting up stuff and get their money’s worth and then buy another game. Only a tiny fraction are going to play any game for hundreds of hours. It doesn’t mean that DCS shouldn’t have the depth for players who want that, indeed that’s a draw in itself. But it’s just another appealing reason to buy the module. What somebody does with it after that doesn’t matter. So adding features at the expense of developing modules isn’t necessarily a boon for the game.
  2. Sure but I’d rather see ED work on other content for WWII than add a feature which would likely go unused or not be very much value in selling the game. There’s a whole world of information and videos and instruction out there to learn this stuff. I don’t think it’s worthwhile for ED to spend the effort in adding more.
  3. But for the purpose of providing a free way to train yourself, it works for that.
  4. DCS already has this with the P-51D and the TF-51D.
  5. Honestly the track feature should just be removed from the game until it can be made to work properly. There’s no point in trying to use it at all.
  6. Clearly, a dual control option for the TP-51 would be the easiest module to make. But ED would still need to devote hours to making it. My guess is everything in DCS is a lot more work than people imagine that it is.
  7. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be realistic but it comes at a cost to the game. Somebody, either ED or a third party actually has to make the module and profit from it. My guess is that it wouldn’t be profitable. Only 10% of the players in this game play online and an even smaller subset might be looking to imitate real world type instruction. The other problem in a PC game is that the chief benefit of dual controls, that the trainee can feel what the instructor is doing, is lost on a PC. So it actually isn’t much help
  8. Many real pilots train in simulators where they can risk things they wouldn’t risk in a real aircraft. Same here.
  9. This is a game. It’s not real life. If I want to practice landing on the carrier I can just do it in an F-18 instead of building up that skill with a variety of training aircraft. If I crash or kill my virtual self I can just restart, there are no real world consequences. The reasons that training aircraft and procedures exist in the real world are not relevant to a game. And it costs money to develop these modules. If a player wants to learn a P-47 they can just buy the module and train on that. Look at the real world training required to use a firearm or drive a car. Is that sort of instruction necessary for a first person shooter or driving game? No… It’s not real, it’s a game.
  10. That’s not hard to believe. Think about what the term “average” actually means. I’m an avid player but I still only do long sessions on a weekend and a lot of my instant action or training etc would be short. Most gamers in general spend 20-30 min a session. There used to be detailed stats available from Steam and it’s funny or amazing to see how little playtime games get. Sim or not. We like to think of sim gamers spending hundreds of hours on games but that’s just a tiny fraction. DCS is odd to look at since it’s a free game. The median total playtime is 33 minutes. So 50% of DCS owners have only played the game for less than 33 minutes ever. Those stats are kinda typical for all games. The majority buy a game, play it for a dozen hours and then move on. These numbers are kinda ridiculous and you couldn’t make decisions based on em. I’m sure ED knows how to analyze the telemetry they get though.
  11. Well consider this. As far as I know (I don’t own the F-14) there’s no SP way to play as the RIO, is there? So since 90% of players are SP-only that means hardly anyone gets the chance to try this role. I wonder if upcoming modules like the Apache will give you an AI pilot so you can fly as the gunner. I would think it will have to. Joe Player in any game will not be “hardcore” and the 25 minute session seems typical for any game. That’s a reason MP is so less popular in flight sims, simply because you need to be connected for such a long session. Sure it would be possible I suppose to make quick action dogfight servers in DCS but I don’t see those.
  12. It’s the first item in this interview with Simon from ED. Also discussed are the crewed modules and the observation that hardly anyone uses the back seat So a multiplayer-only crew-only module in DCS seems like a tough sell
  13. It’s an easy thing to confirm. Go online and look. There are only about half a dozen populated servers (excluding training or aerobatics) where you could actually fly the F-14. All of those will only be running the latest version so when the OB cycle comes along, you’ll need to run that in order to play online. If not then there won’t be any other option.
  14. When you consider that only about 10% of DCS players do multiplayer and the limited appeal of a non-piloting MP-only aircraft module, I can’t imagine this suggestion would be feasible. If somebody wants to buy in cheap to the F-14 then the easy option that’s already available is to wait for a sale.
  15. There’s a way to edit the lua for the skin file to do this but I forget exactly how. I think it’s simple enough, go to the bottom and you’ll see the nationalities listed, just add whatever you like there.
  16. Why would the SAM shut down it’s radar when it could just shoot down the incoming HARM? SAMs can target SLAMs and it’s the same missile so I would think they can just target the HARM too.
  17. What I meant was a multiplayer-only module would essentially require the owner to run the OB about 3/4 of the time since that’s where all the players are. If for whatever reason they didn’t want to run OB they’d be practically unable to use it.
  18. Getting a warbird ride in a video game isn’t that exciting… not like getting a ride in a real one.
  19. I agree if the game were to include a two-seat WWII trainer, this might be the easiest route to one. And the fact that it’s a free aircraft obviously benefits newcomers. However I would bet that the two-seat functionality in DCS goes largely unused. The other problem with utilizing the TF-51 is that it’s an ED product and they would have to devote resources towards developing that feature. It would be fun but I don’t think it would help bring in new players very much. New players aren’t really going to be interested in system failures.
  20. I don’t think the lack of real world-like training is the obstacle to bringing new players to DCS. It’s more a matter of the inherent complexity and need for additional controllers & peripherals that keeps this a niche game. Novice players are more attracted to making stuff go boom than patiently getting instruction. FC3 and the upcoming Modern Air Combat are a more likely path to full fidelity DCS modules.
  21. The problem with a multiplayer-only module for DCS, which is what this would be, is that MP is effectively restricted to Open Beta about 3/4 of the time. All the popular servers will only run the latest version, which is most often the OB. So unless someone is willing to be a Beta Tester and have dual installs of the game they wouldn't be able to use this WSO/RIO module most of the time.
  22. The problem with having “trainer” aircraft in DCS is that the reasons that these are necessary in the real world, safety, cost etc aren’t present in a game. You’re free to jump into the cockpit of a combat aircraft and kill yourself and wreck it as much as you want. So I don’t think the trainer aircraft probably sell very well. The TP-51 is only in the game as a free aircraft.
  23. The most important factor for me with these things is that they don’t wobble. At all. What I can’t stand about sliding keyboard trays is that they will bounce or wobble as you type on them. Using them to put a joystick or mousepad for gaming would be equally bad. Lots of keyboard trays don’t lock into position, my old setup I just put c clamps on the tray to lock it down. The Monetertech mounts are beautiful. They even work as a keyboard tray without the sticks on them and clip on and off instantly. The pad which puts the mouse right next to the stick is really essential too. Expensive but worth every penny.
  24. Monstertech is great https://www.monstertechusa.com The mouse pad option mounted to the stick base is perfect for DCS
  25. It would take a sophisticated DM/FM to do this, right now I think if planes touch each other they break or explode. But it would be cool…
  • Create New...